Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Sat, 10 February 2018 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475D612DA68 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ctCQyNMgDpiP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDBB112DA6C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id b129so7551279ywa.8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Z/vLGD8hUMJvFyCX+KsLcWlZNL4gJ81oILSp1tPP/7U=; b=Te8zmcGJdGuoERq0PHrSYqcIjs5Zna5MkKMwHT2WE+eR+c4PXZhzRwYxj0R9C2K2pk 78wq6zG9hvudoMA6sB196pRXMt/zmk3Bndj1ITUjQE1XlbB1pys/1G3qMnSwSlDMW3/7 YdkGljyb5poYn3tcVa+QY6jdhfU6m9JMrYaog=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Z/vLGD8hUMJvFyCX+KsLcWlZNL4gJ81oILSp1tPP/7U=; b=su5dtbUmFo26bz1EiM5brawyKbECTiSsJgnjMnX2WjEyrMQgbkeAOeFWJNgtmKptNe m9RQerRcXMfkOr/dK/4LwpyoR2vDp6ATO4nLPnByxFLXD8nbIMFEN7VilZiuO/SiPJw3 +3J3uPtzjIH5dAvl0GGQw4KDnAH6VfdDZsJF2yWNJseXqXc7aO+eA3bVxM7w1Ak4GMJr hEnP7MLY+JJgBI2vgL9IPiNeia1VUEVTzkttJK3ONfpCfuWJ0ymDyi158XAfKZ/A9lee WXREALerl39YINiMF0GTM+6Czh0b9VXUIJOm1Vhvc0kxf+Z/aPNZtKTT1bjuTGhwwfg+ TbOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBXKIGGPXZO9vYWSx5p2dPx2sxFdGaQ4rH53Z8lQGFG3Qh2XPjM WC9B6gHpV7U5aHz81zLlk2znzQ0Wd9Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226jyDIdN+9Y9kw+IBexgMVxWPvm/fsTnz4KxzcbCuZmfo69BOwPyYMYAuEVL3zebBKjkBVI4Q==
X-Received: by 10.37.36.213 with SMTP id k204mr2101388ybk.296.1518298383809; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:101:3:3c20:6629:9cd7:dad8? ([2607:f2c0:101:3:3c20:6629:9cd7:dad8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w69sm2083141yww.13.2018.02.10.13.33.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15D60)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=LkcZjKNuThgbFFzBmHsLNVKoEjH3iNp3ev+=652DWcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:33:01 -0500
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7BD22BDE-6420-44DF-BB4F-D2F32AFAF4DF@hopcount.ca>
References: <2B1DC084-C6EA-41DA-9029-5E230874FCBE@isc.org> <29F25C57-31D1-4A07-875D-16E7612DB993@fugue.com> <E4C5AA7E-E9C1-4E53-ABE0-676A9B7B3269@isc.org> <618D31E1-8EC7-4F75-BD97-31D42CB1E681@fugue.com> <40992CF7-5740-43ED-8B78-8D8A9B50A15C@isc.org> <F28D0F1D-416E-4016-8A5A-95173FFFAA4E@fugue.com> <CANLjSvVd+vj8M+vBOokfpOL1fmq2iU9JAhSCd6eY_aoE1p5SMQ@mail.gmail.com> <97783B49-11C9-47F1-8F73-3D909C9B4DC4@fugue.com> <CANLjSvUV1RPR8nhLXCEL0WT9=2Lqb+4STh+7gSRPvv_Mmf-NTA@mail.gmail.com> <698033B2-09A6-4E66-82AD-04906D4DEA1B@fugue.com> <20180209225508.GC974@mx4.yitter.info> <CAHw9_i+OhMckTx5rniXTJJHXZXHtHt8wYO2XU9_kCmdW+nswfg@mail.gmail.com> <78DB0408-9870-4855-936A-3C4774B2CDE7@hopcount.ca> <CAPt1N1=LkcZjKNuThgbFFzBmHsLNVKoEjH3iNp3ev+=652DWcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4QRfrwNywzHHX-OglzZnncoT0Y0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:33:06 -0000

On Feb 10, 2018, at 16:27, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Well, for example, when the DHC working group was considering the search list option for DHCPv6, I argued that there should be no such option because search lists are bad.   My argument was rejected.   Had the IETF officially deprecated searchlists prior to that, there would be no DHCPv6 search option, and that attack surface would not exist.

I wonder whether there's a useful difference between "deprecate" (which has connotations of banning something that is in active use and is unlikely to go away) and providing architectural guidance that IETF protocols shouldn't incorporate, encourage or rely upon search list processing.

In any case, I interpret your data point as agreement with my second paragraph :-)


Joe